Talk:Fourth-generation warfare

Military history: Technology / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Fourth generation warfare directly attacks the will of the technologically advantaged opponent to continue the conflict. Mao's Long March and the Ho's Wars in Indochina are examples of 4GW. Peaceful use of ideological networks, such as Ghandi's march to the sea, are examples of 4GW's peaceful cousin, Fourth Generation Politics.

I think that this displays a misunderstanding of the concept. 4GW is a fusion of politics and warfare. Note the earlier definition of 4GW and check out Mao tse Tung's quote on the definitions of politics and war.Ace Diamond 20:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed reference from the Long March to the People's war. Added link to Indochina Wars. Also changed the following:

Fourth generation warfare directly attacks the will of the technologically advantaged opponent to continue the conflict.

I changed continue to prevail, as the continuation of the conflict is the means of prevailing. Deleuze 14:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this article mostly misunderstands the fundemental concept of fourth generation war. Most of it needs to be rewritten with a better understanding of the subject, IMO.

I may attempt this, but I don't have too much spare time right now. Hopefully this can be done.DrDimension 14:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but would the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be a Fourth Generation War? srvbeach21 00:40, 18 July 2006

Yes it would be. As is Ghandi's opposition to the British Empire. 4GW is basically a conflict in the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level of war. 24.168.64.206 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references

It is quite sad that we have so many weblogs listed in the references section. Can't we come up with something like a primary source for it? ... aa:talk 19:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm is a copy of the orginal Marine Corps Gazette article on 4GW.--Purpleslog 02:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

debunked

The entire 4GW 'concept' is trashed comprehensively in FOURTH-GENERATION WAR AND OTHER MYTHS by Dr.Antulio J. Echevarria II [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.16.127.164 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I guess that explains why the state has been doing so well in Sri Lanka, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and other parts of the world? Nothing else IMNSHO explains those developments as well as the 4GW concept. 24.168.64.206 04:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so well. Right. Even the guru of this bogus concept doesnt think theyre doing "so well". Given the state of the article I dont want to associate myself with it, but at least one subsection is factually wrong. A shame since facts are generally nice things to find in articles.

Lind seeks to use the views of Van Creveld as supporting his debunked theories. They aren't Lind views. [2]. And even worse, Van Creveld is factually incorrect on curfews pt.5, and staying within the law pt.6. See Falls Curfew & Force Research Unit respectively (there were curfews elsewhere, the New Lodge for example, and lots of other examples of illegal activity I cant be bothered to list). Its not even worth remarking on all the other things wrong with what Van Creveld claims except that its worth asking what exactly his views on Ireland have to do with "warfare's return to a decentralized form"? (whatever that is)

Lind signs off his article by encouraging US military leadership to learn to love 3-1 ratio losses. lol! Crank.